By Myke Uzendu, Abuja
A Federal High Court in Abuja has barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (Independent National Electoral Commission) from recognising or participating in any congress organised by the disputed caretaker leadership of the African Democratic Congress.
Delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik also restrained former Senate President David Mark and other party figures from interfering with the functions and tenure of duly elected state executives of the party.
The ruling followed an originating summons filed by Norman Obinna and six others on behalf of ADC state chairpersons and executive committees, challenging the legality of actions taken by a caretaker or interim national leadership.
The plaintiffs argued that the caretaker body lacked constitutional authority to organise state congresses or appoint committees for that purpose, urging the court to affirm their tenure and halt any parallel process.
In her judgment, Justice Abdulmalik held that “the issue in the originating summons is meritorious,” adding that the central question was whether the defendants had the constitutional or statutory authority to assume the powers of elected state organs whose tenure is guaranteed.
She referenced Section 223 of the 1999 Constitution, noting that political parties must conduct periodic elections on a democratic basis, while also citing provisions of the party’s constitution limiting the tenure of national and state officers.
“The question is whether there is any infraction committed by Mr Mark and co-defendants when they convened meetings and appointed a body known as a congress committee,” she said.
Addressing arguments that the matter concerned internal party affairs, the judge ruled that “the law is settled that courts will not interfere. However, where there is an allegation of breach of constitutional or statutory provisions, the court has a duty to intervene.”
“Where a party alleges that its constitution has been violated, the court is bound to adjudicate. Any argument that this court lacks jurisdiction on that basis fails,” she added.
The court found that the procedure adopted by the defendants, including the appointment of a “congress committee,” was not recognised by the party’s constitution. It ruled that the tenure of state executive committees remains valid and must run its course, stressing that only elected structures have the authority to organise state congresses.
Consequently, the court set aside the appointment of the committee and restrained INEC from recognising any congress organised by it. It also barred Mr Mark and other defendants from conducting congresses or conventions outside the provisions of the party’s constitution, as well as from taking steps that could undermine state executives.
The defendants in the suit include the ADC, Mr Mark, Patricia Akwashiki, Malam Bolaji Abdullahi, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Oserheimen Osunbor, and INEC.
In their defence, Mr Mark and others had urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that it concerned internal party affairs, was not justiciable, and that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi.
However, ruling on the preliminary objections, Justice Abdulmalik held that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, noting that it pertains partly to the role of INEC under Section 251 of the Constitution.
She also dismissed arguments that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms, stating that addressing such claims at that stage would amount to deciding substantive issues prematurely.
On locus standi, the court held that the plaintiffs’ capacity arose from the alleged violation, adding that their shared grievance justified the representative action.
Justice Abdulmalik ruled that the objections lacked merit and resolved them in favour of the plaintiffs.
